4 ms·

> They're very clearly making point estimates to contrast with the prevalent IFR estimates of the time (~2%), which we now know were entirely wrong. 0.01% (the

> They're very clearly making point estimates to contrast with the prevalent IFR estimates of the time (~2%), which we now know were entirely wrong. 0.01% (their estimate according to the post above) is far more "entirely wrong" than 2%. For instance, https://www.cdc.gov/library/covid19/112420_covidupdate.html https://www.cdc.gov/library/covid19/112420_covidupdate.html mentions an estimate of 0.94% for Italy (in fact I have a hard time of viewing an early estimate 2% as significantly wrong when a later one with a lot more time and data is around 1%).

timr 6y ago
An estimate of 0.01% is closer to what we know today than the ~2% estimates of the time. Current best point estimates for IFR are somewhere between 0.1%-0.5%, depending on population age. But IFR is so tied to age that it's unhelpful to compare it from country to country. One of the reasons Italy's observed fatality rate is higher than average is because of the higher average age of is population. The CDC's current best estimates are: <20yo: .003% <50yo: .02% <70yo: .5% >70yo: 5.4% Even a small increase in the elderly population can dramatically influence the observed IFR for a given nation. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/planning-scenarios.html https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/planning-scena...
- mikeyouse 6y ago
  The US’s observed CFR stands at 1.7% right now... plenty of first world countries with excellent testing are above 2%. I honestly am shocked people are still lying about all of this. https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/data/mortality https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/data/mortality
  - timr 6y ago
    CFR != IFR. A huge portion of infections in the US are never reported or detected. I can't believe people are still confusing these. Dividing fatalities by known cases is completely wrong, and is not the definition of IFR.
    - mikeyouse 6y ago
      Just do the math though, 500k deaths (+ whatever number of deaths not reported as such) vs what proportion of cases are unreported.. 50%? 75%? Help me get to an IFR approaching 0.1%..
      - Gibbon1 6y ago
        Estimated cases in the US is 60 million. 500,000 deaths gives an IRF of 0.8%. Which is close to what the Chinese reported a year ago.
    - davidgay 6y ago
      Strangely enough, though dividing total US deaths by the total US population gives a population death rate of 0.135%, and on a per-state basis 5 states are above 0.2%. That's a definite lower bound on the IFR and more-than-obvious evidence that neither 0.1%, or 0.01% are plausible IFRs.
      - timr 6y ago
        > dividing total US deaths by the total US population gives a population death rate of 0.135%, and on a per-state basis 5 states are above 0.2%. That's a definite lower bound on the IFR and more-than-obvious evidence that neither 0.1%, or 0.01% are plausible IFRs. 0.01% is likely not a plausible IFR estimate for the entire US. 0.1% is consistent with your back-of-the-envelope calculation. Whether you know it or not, your calculation has error bars on it. Those error bars do not exclude 0.1%.
- davidgay 6y ago
  No. From the link I posted: "Infection fatality rates (IFRs) were higher in countries with older populations, such as Japan (1.09%, 95% Credible Interval [CrI] 0.94%-1.26%) and Italy (0.94%, 95% CrI 0.80%-1.08%), compared with countries with younger populations, such as Kenya (0.09%, 95% CrI 0.08%-0.10%), and Pakistan (0.16%, 95% CrI 0.14% – 0.19%) (Figure)." That's 0.1-1.1%, not 0.1-0.5%. And the initial context was the USA, whose age distribution is more like (though noticeably different) Italy's than it's like Kenya's.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]

timr 6y ago

An estimate of 0.01% is closer to what we know today than the ~2% estimates of the time. Current best point estimates for IFR are somewhere between 0.1%-0.5%, depending on population age. But IFR is so tied to age that it's unhelpful to compare it from country to country. One of the reasons Italy's observed fatality rate is higher than average is because of the higher average age of is population. The CDC's current best estimates are: <20yo: .003% <50yo: .02% <70yo: .5% >70yo: 5.4% Even a small increase in the elderly population can dramatically influence the observed IFR for a given nation. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/planning-scenarios.html https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/planning-scena...

mikeyouse 6y ago
The US’s observed CFR stands at 1.7% right now... plenty of first world countries with excellent testing are above 2%. I honestly am shocked people are still lying about all of this. https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/data/mortality https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/data/mortality
- timr 6y ago
  CFR != IFR. A huge portion of infections in the US are never reported or detected. I can't believe people are still confusing these. Dividing fatalities by known cases is completely wrong, and is not the definition of IFR.
  - mikeyouse 6y ago
    Just do the math though, 500k deaths (+ whatever number of deaths not reported as such) vs what proportion of cases are unreported.. 50%? 75%? Help me get to an IFR approaching 0.1%..
    - Gibbon1 6y ago
      Estimated cases in the US is 60 million. 500,000 deaths gives an IRF of 0.8%. Which is close to what the Chinese reported a year ago.
  - davidgay 6y ago
    Strangely enough, though dividing total US deaths by the total US population gives a population death rate of 0.135%, and on a per-state basis 5 states are above 0.2%. That's a definite lower bound on the IFR and more-than-obvious evidence that neither 0.1%, or 0.01% are plausible IFRs.
    - timr 6y ago
      > dividing total US deaths by the total US population gives a population death rate of 0.135%, and on a per-state basis 5 states are above 0.2%. That's a definite lower bound on the IFR and more-than-obvious evidence that neither 0.1%, or 0.01% are plausible IFRs. 0.01% is likely not a plausible IFR estimate for the entire US. 0.1% is consistent with your back-of-the-envelope calculation. Whether you know it or not, your calculation has error bars on it. Those error bars do not exclude 0.1%.
davidgay 6y ago
No. From the link I posted: "Infection fatality rates (IFRs) were higher in countries with older populations, such as Japan (1.09%, 95% Credible Interval [CrI] 0.94%-1.26%) and Italy (0.94%, 95% CrI 0.80%-1.08%), compared with countries with younger populations, such as Kenya (0.09%, 95% CrI 0.08%-0.10%), and Pakistan (0.16%, 95% CrI 0.14% – 0.19%) (Figure)." That's 0.1-1.1%, not 0.1-0.5%. And the initial context was the USA, whose age distribution is more like (though noticeably different) Italy's than it's like Kenya's.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]